F. Dodwell / Music-News: "New Morrissey track Bonfire of Teenagers: It's okay to be angry about injustice" (July 6, 2022)

Morrissey5.jpg


New Morrissey track Bonfire of Teenagers: It's okay to be angry about injustice.

Excerpt:
While the Mancunian Oasis anthem 'Don't Look Back In Anger' (which is mentioned in the song lyrics) can perhaps be soothing to many at such a time, Morrissey instead takes his listeners aside and assures them that yes, it is absolutely okay to be angry about this; yes, sometimes anger is a very normal, human response to hurt, pain, death and tragedy.




FWD.


See also the NME story, link posted by several:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Badge

Guest
I didn't say Morrissey should ask permission or that he had no right to be angry, of course he does. I didn't say he should change his opinion either - but he hasn't expressed it well with those lyrics and he risks a backlash, that's just the truth.

I've been paying enough attention to realise that Morrissey's opinions have driven his career off a cliff and that more "controversy" right now won't help him get a deal, it will just alienate him more. Maybe he's past caring, maybe he never cared in the first place, who knows?

People are so attached to this romantic idea of Moz as an outsider figure, someone "true to himself' at all costs - and he absolutely is that but being thought of as a bitter, stubborn, loudmouth contrarian is no badge of honour. You can be 'true' to who you are in a way that still respects others' feelings and he just seems incapable of doing that.
Very well said.
 

marred

Member
you may say, I’m a child, but I’m not the only one ….


Really though, it’s because you know what the world is actually like that makes you write a song like that.
It's no wonder it was the song all of those insufferable celebs chose to sing on instagram during the height of covid mania. Head up ass and sing.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><>
It's no wonder it was the song all of those insufferable celebs chose to sing on instagram during the height of covid mania. Head up ass and sing.

didn’t hear that, & have no idea why they thought that would be a good idea, I don’t see the connection.

Anyway, it’s a great song, I don’t care what others think of it or what they do with it.

I do know it was banned and wasn’t allowed to be played on American radio right after 9/11.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
didn’t hear that, & have no idea why they thought that would be a good idea, I don’t see the connection.

Anyway, it’s a great song, I don’t care what others think of it or what they do with it.

I do know it was banned and wasn’t allowed to be played on American radio right after 9/11.
Americans are touchy about that “no religion” bit. I think that’s really radical that he slipped that in. Good for him.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><>
I didn't say Morrissey should ask permission or that he had no right to be angry, of course he does. I didn't say he should change his opinion either - but he hasn't expressed it well with those lyrics and he risks a backlash, that's just the truth.

Regardless of what we think about the lyrics being the right or wrong thing to say or sing due to the subject. I think he succeeded with this song as a whole, in expressing his feelings and possibly the feelings of some of those related to the victims.

There will always be backlash, unless of course he remains silent.

I've been paying enough attention to realise that Morrissey's opinions have driven his career off a cliff and that more "controversy" right now won't help him get a deal, it will just alienate him more. Maybe he's past caring, maybe he never cared in the first place, who knows?

People are so attached to this romantic idea of Moz as an outsider figure, someone "true to himself' at all costs - and he absolutely is that but being thought of as a bitter, stubborn, loudmouth contrarian is no badge of honour.

some don’t seem to have a choice, not in today’s world. To not be true to himself, would mean to remain silent.

You can be 'true' to who you are in a way that still respects others' feelings and he just seems incapable of doing that.

Not always perfect, not one to explain, for I imagine he trusts everyone will understand where he’s coming from, unfortunately. But I believe he is respecting others’ feelings, by being their voice, by the way he expresses himself, either in interview or more importantly in song, sometimes even at the risk of his own livelihood.

1657295704645.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><>
Americans are touchy about that “no religion” bit. I think that’s really radical that he slipped that in. Good for him.

It’s a ‘punk’ move, and even a brave one.
I’m surprised Marred hadn’t caught onto that aspect of the song.
 

Amy

from the Ice Age to the dole age
Not always perfect, not one to explain, for I imagine he trusts everyone will understand where he’s coming from, unfortunately. But I believe he is respecting others’ feelings, by being their voice, by the way he expresses himself, either in interview or more importantly in song, sometimes even at the risk of his own livelihood.
If he is trusting people to interpret his intentions but not really willing to explain them then he hasn't succeeded in expressing himself well. Not sure what more I can add there.

In terms of respecting others' feelings in the way he expresses himself - I think he does and often has but not with this song. He can write beautifully, sensitively, heartbreakingly when he wants to - other times, it feels like he just has a blind spot.

Just a random example - we know that M has always been interested in the Moors case and that "Suffer Little Children" was meant with the best intentions. We know he cared about the victims, their families and their communities. But in his autobio, he describes a murdered boy as "a gawky child from Manchester's forgotten side streets". Did he mean well? I think he did - he was trying to make a point that the search for Keith Bennett doesn't attract the attention of the McCann case. But it doesn't come across well and that's a trap he often falls into.
 

snoddywilko

Well-Known Member
didn’t hear that, & have no idea why they thought that would be a good idea, I don’t see the connection.

Anyway, it’s a great song, I don’t care what others think of it or what they do with it.

I do know it was banned and wasn’t allowed to be played on American radio right after 9/11.

Yes, because of its opening line: “Imagine there’s no heaven…”
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><>
In terms of respecting others' feelings in the way he expresses himself - I think he does and often has but not with this song. He can write beautifully, sensitively, heartbreakingly when he wants to - other times, it feels like he just has a blind spot.
Well, that depends with what his intentions were with this song. I find the song moving.

Just a random example - we know that M has always been interested in the Moors case and that "Suffer Little Children" was meant with the best intentions. We know he cared about the victims, their families and their communities. But in his autobio, he describes a murdered boy as "a gawky child from Manchester's forgotten side streets". Did he mean well? I think he did - he was trying to make a point that the search for Keith Bennett doesn't attract the attention of the McCann case. But it doesn't come across well and that's a trap he often falls into.

How does it not come across well, if you understand the point he was making?
 
Last edited:

Redacted

I think I must be, absolutely, a total sex object.
Surely people realize the Morrissey fandom is much bigger than this place. There are groups with 50k members, 20k members, etc and the official M page has 1.4m fans, while the stats here say only 23k and not many are active.
In other places, I have seen overwhelmingly positive responses to the new songs and esp Bonfire. Solo never seems to be representative of the overall sentiments toward M. People are also keeping setlists, videos and pictures elsewhere.
 

Fake C

Measured, Found Wanting
If he is trusting people to interpret his intentions but not really willing to explain them then he hasn't succeeded in expressing himself well. Not sure what more I can add there.
This is what he does all too often. Sometimes after he gets an angry response, as in the Der Spiegel interview , he will deny what he said until proof appears. In that case he still implied he had been somehow defamed because of the way it was edited. He never bothered to say what he actually meant, though. How could he when the meaning was pretty clear.

With the NME 2007 case he objected to their interpretation of things he said, but his comment about “opening the floodgates,” has unfortunate historical precedence, and again we’re left to decide if someone who has written such insightful lyrics can sometimes make accidental mistakes, like using that phrase without having any idea how it reverberates.

It’s called a dog whistle and to think he is unaware of it underestimates his language skills. He knows what he is doing
 
Last edited:

Amy

from the Ice Age to the dole age
Last edited:

Janice

Well-Known Member
Surely people realize the Morrissey fandom is much bigger than this place. There are groups with 50k members, 20k members, etc and the official M page has 1.4m fans, while the stats here say only 23k and not many are active.
In other places, I have seen overwhelmingly positive responses to the new songs and esp Bonfire. Solo never seems to be representative of the overall sentiments toward M. People are also keeping setlists, videos and pictures elsewhere.
I suppose it defines what a fan is.
Membership here for example. That Skinny spends his life on here telling us how much he hates Morrissey, so I’d say numbers attached to groups is none reflective to a point.
On the flip side, I was sure the upcoming U.K. gigs would sell in a heartbeat due to the venue capacities being relatively low in comparison to most of the venues he’s played here since 2011. They didn’t. Concert numbers I personally feel are irrelevant as long as those who go to the concerts have a good time.

Be merry 🙂
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><>


Just a random example - we know that M has always been interested in the Moors case and that "Suffer Little Children" was meant with the best intentions. We know he cared about the victims, their families and their communities. But in his autobio, he describes a murdered boy as "a gawky child from Manchester's forgotten side streets". Did he mean well? I think he did - he was trying to make a point that the search for Keith Bennett doesn't attract the attention of the McCann case. But it doesn't come across well and that's a trap he often falls into.

I agree, I don’t think the above needs his explaining. Though M seems to have succeeded in making his opinion clear, how it comes across to people is subjective.

No adult should need this explaining to them. Pack it in.
 

MILKISMURDER

Active Member

We were warned even against saying the i-word – Islamist. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham damned the arena atrocity as the work of an ‘extremist’, prompting Morrissey to ask: ‘An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?’ When then UKIP leader Paul Nuttall said a week after the slaughter that politicians should have ‘the courage’ to name the problem, to call it ‘Islamist extremism’, he was roundly denounced. It is ‘completely outrageous’ to use the word Islamist in relation to this attack, said Green MP Caroline Lucas. Tell that to the mass murderer himself, Salman Abedi, whose intent was clear as day: to kill as many free young citizens as possible in the name of the Islamist ideology.

Don’t look back in anger, don’t feel strong emotions, don’t say the word ‘Islamist’ – that was the creepy response of the powers-that-be to one of the worst assaults in living memory on the youth of this country. We had the perverse situation where almost instantaneously the Twitterati was saying ‘Let’s not risk an outbreak of Islamophobia by overreacting to this attack’. Parents were picking nails from their children’s faces and these people were talking about Islamophobia. The hours and days after this atrocity provided one of the starkest and most disturbing insights into the moral cowardice of the new elites, who are so desperate to maintain the phoney peace of multiculturalism than they will fully turn their heads away from the violent tensions in our society and from the hateful scourge of Islamist extremism.
 

Amy

from the Ice Age to the dole age
I agree, I don’t think the above needs his explaining. Though M seems to have succeeded in making his opinion clear, how it comes across to people is subjective.
Please do not distort my posts by quoting them out of sequence in a way that changes the meaning.

You said "How does it not come across well?" - and I replied that no adult should need that explaining to them. If you can't see any problem with describing a murdered 12-year-old as "a gawky child from Manchester's forgotten side streets", there's something wrong with you.
 
Last edited:

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><>
Please do not distort my posts by quoting them out of sequence in a way that changes the meaning.

You said "How does it not come across well?" - and I replied that no adult should need that explaining to them. If you can't see any problem with describing a murdered 12-year-old as "a gawky child from Manchester's forgotten side streets", there's something wrong with you. Pretty sick to post a 'laughing' reaction about it, too.

When I asked ‘How does it not come across well?’ I wasn’t asking about the judgment of his words. I was asking how does it not come across well, when most will understand the point he’s putting across. I’m talking about his intention, not about what anyone thinks about his choice of words.


I wasn’t asking you or anyone to explain what he means in that example from his bio. That’s why I posted a ‘laughing’ reaction. Laughing because you misunderstood me.

Any numbskull can see how his choice of words can be interpreted. I was commenting on his intention.
 
Last edited:

Amy

from the Ice Age to the dole age
When I asked ‘How does it not come across well?’ I wasn’t asking about the judgment of his words. I was asking how does it not come across well, when most will understand the point he’s putting across. I’m talking about his intention, not about what anyone thinks about his choice of words.
"Coming across well" doesn't mean "being clearly understood", though - it means giving a positive impression / saying something likely to be interpreted in a positive light. That was my meaning, and it had everything to do with his choice of words.
 
Last edited:
D

Dean B

Guest
View attachment 82617

New Morrissey track Bonfire of Teenagers: It's okay to be angry about injustice.

Excerpt:
While the Mancunian Oasis anthem 'Don't Look Back In Anger' (which is mentioned in the song lyrics) can perhaps be soothing to many at such a time, Morrissey instead takes his listeners aside and assures them that yes, it is absolutely okay to be angry about this; yes, sometimes anger is a very normal, human response to hurt, pain, death and tragedy.




FWD.


See also the NME story, link posted by several:


I think ppl should be angry. At much more than just the killers. I never knew about the singing of Dont Look Back In Anger....but that's typical of this weak, nihilist, fear driven society. Unfortunately one day thr backlash to it is going to be terrifying
 
Tags
fiona dodwell
Top Bottom